THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY COMES NOT TO DESTROY, BUT TO 
FULFILL, THE CONSTITUTION 


ADDRESS 


BY 


THEODORE GILMAN 

1 / 


YONKERS, N. Y. 

Delivered at a Progressive Rally held in Yonkers Public 
High School 

SEPTEMBER 27, 1912 


IN ANSWER TO NICHOLAS MURRAY BUTLER’S ADDRESS ON 
“WHY SHOULD WE CHANGE OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT?” 












4 


S'- 's i ‘ * ’♦ * * .* * -V * ’■'**' '' 

• - - '.v .1- “ 



•', /v ‘’■•'y 

' .« ' 









v;-j. 


^ H 

i*v ;>.'■ . 

Vw i. I . ^ •. 


vv-^. f. ;;• 




.> 4 vi 


.jL>x •;. ' r. ^ 


\»r ‘ 




>, 




^ 


i 


I 

I 


i < 


>* 


'^t 


«, 


\ 


r 



-• 


> .. 



tS 

*• 

k 





:* 



4 


■X 


w 





» 






r 


I 




In an address delivered before the Commercial Club of St. Louis, 
on the 27th of November, 1911, which has recently been called to my 
attention, Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia University, 
asked the question, ^‘Why should we change our form of government?” 
This question has been repeated by other speakers and writers and is 
entitled to an unswer. 

In all his address Dr. Butler has ignored the existence of the 
modern invention called the political machine, which dominates and 
vitiates so much of our legislation and executive action, and which 
the Progressive Party has made its chief object of attack. If he had 
taken into consideration this prominent factor of our national politi¬ 
cal life, would he not rather have asked the question, “Why have we 
allowed our form of government to be so changed from that instituted 
by the framers of the Constitution ?” The omission to refer to the 
main contention of his opponents is an error in argumentation, and 
it is especially regrettable that it should have been made by one who 
attempts to treat the political situation in an historical, legal and 
scientific way. 

But besides covering up this festering sore which the Progressive 
Party proposes to remove by remedial means, he diverts the attention 
of his readers from the political machine and the bosses, to the cor¬ 
rective measures which that party designs to use in effecting a cure. 
He does not diagnose the case, but in place thereof, he asssails and 
criticises the remedies. 

Dr. Butler is not alone in this method of treatment of the subject, 
for the speeches of those who agree with him, like his own, do not 
contain the words the political machine, much less expatiate upon 
them. 

To those who are familiar with the state of the body politic and 
the question which Dr. Butler discusses, a sufficient and conclusive 
answer is that the proposals of the Progressive Party would not 
change our form of government but would harmonize with the intent 
and scope of the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court, 
in their opinion rendered in the Oregon tax case, February 19, 1912, 
said that the question whether a state still maintained a republican 
form of government after it had adopted the initiative and referendum 
method of legislation, was a political problem for congress and not 
a judicial one for the Courts. It might further be answered that the 


4 


ADDRESS BY THEODORE GILMAN 


stated object of the Constitution is “to form a more perfect union” 
and the plan of government adopted therein was a means to that 
end and not the end itself. Also the rejoinder might be made that the 
opening phrase of the Constitution, “We, the people of the United 
States,” demolishes at one blow the claim that ours is primarily a gov¬ 
ernment by representatives. The original articles of Confederation, 
which went into effect nine years before the Constitution, read, “We, 
the undersigned delegates of the States.” The change to “We, the 
people,” was made at the Federal Convention with full understanding 
of the meaning and effect of the new form of words. There has never 
been any concession from the claim that our government was formed 
by the people and that the sovereign people and not the representatives 
are supreme. 

But notwithstanding these considerations and Dr. ButleFs avoid¬ 
ance of the true issues, the effect of his address is not diminished 
on those who are influenced by his high position in the academic 
world, nor is the necessity removed of patiently stating the true 
principles underlying the reforms proposed by the Progressive Party. 

The discussions now agitating the country hark back to and are a 
continuation of those which took place in 1787, 1788 and 1789, when 
the question of the ratiflcation or rejection of the Constitution was 
debated. The eighty-five papers written by James Madison, after¬ 
wards fourth president of the United States, John Jay and Alexander 
Hamilton, contained in the Fe'deralistj and the many speeches before 
the thirteen State Constitutional Conventions, have taken on a new 
interest. The arguments for and against the adoption of the Con¬ 
stitution are no longer considered antiquated, or the debates on 
the articles closed. They form the opening chapter of our constitu¬ 
tional history, to which in these times we are now adding a continua¬ 
tion. 

The controlling conception of our form of government, which pre¬ 
vailed at the Federal Convention presided over by Washington, was 
in favor of a strong central government. Shay’s rebellion and other 
turmoils and a debased currency were convincing proof of this 
necessity. Political parties had no place in their plan, and the poli¬ 
tical machine was unknown. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, 
in their papers in the Federalist^ both strove to show how the Con¬ 
stitution tended to prevent the existence of factions and parties and 
to neutralize and minimize their effects if formed. 

Parties were developed almost immediately after the Constitution 
was-in force, to the great regret of Washington, who, after trying for 


OCT I81> 


ADDRESS BY THEODORE GILMAN 


5 


eight years in vain to harmonize the conflicting elements in his 
cabinet, devoted about one quarter of his FarevT’ell Address to the 
deprecation of the party spirit. Parties rose to settle the unsolved 
questions contained in the Constitution. By bargain and compromise 
the two theories of government, the democratic and the aristocratic, 
were left in it to be solved by future generations, as were the dreadful 
legacies of slavery and the right of secession. Those questions were 
decided on the fleld of battle at the cost of a million lives and six 
thousand millions of treasure. Fortunately the question between 
aristocracy and democracy can be decided in peaceful political cam¬ 
paigns. 

The hope of the framers seemed to be that the best men would be 
named as Presidential Electors, and they, without previous instructions 
from their constituents, would elect the man who was best qualified to be 
president. In the same idyllic way, the state legislatures were ex¬ 
pected to elect as senators those who were best suited for that office. 
In the same spirit, the whole description of the qualification of repre¬ 
sentatives, indicates that it was not expected they would be divided 
into parties or influenced in their legislative acts by any considera¬ 
tion but the public good. These provisions were intended to secure 
the carrying on of the government with as little direct participation 
in it by the people as possible. The Constitution was therefore called 
an aristocratic constitution, and we find it so described in a letter 
from Madison to Jefferson. 

Promptly, as with our first parents, the serpent made his appearance 
in this governmental garden of Eden, and our forefathers, under his 
tuition, soon became wise to the tricks of political management. 

The situation of politics as it exists now is not the same as it 
was when our government was first established and the Constitution 
adopted. Far from it. The change has been one of retrogression. 
The statesman, like the primal man, has fallen before the seductions 
of the political machine and has changed his allegiance from the 
people to the worship of the political boss. All this aspect of the 
subject is ignored by Dr. Butler and those who sympathise with him. 

The first theory of the Electoral College has long since been aban¬ 
doned and the votes of the Electors are now controlled by popular 
or democratic election. The election of senators is, in several states, 
now dictated by the people through a primary vote and that democratic 
custom is growing. In the same way the people now propose to come 
into closer touch with their representatives by the abolition of the 
machine, and the substitution therefor of the direct primary, the 


6 


ADDRESS BY THEODORE GILMAN 


initiative, referendum and recall. This is all one logical and irresist¬ 
ible movement, in one direction, having as its object the restoration of 
our form of government to its original purity and ideal perfection, 
as a government under the control of ^^We, the people,” who formed it. 

It is now over 120 years since the Constitution was adopted, and 
during that time the original thirteen states have increased in number 
to 48 and the population from three millions to over 90 millions. It is 
a marvel that the original Constitution is still the law of the land, 
and only 15 amendments in all that time have been added to it, ten 
of which were ratified in the first three years. Something more has 
happened during the past 120 years than an increase in population 
and in the number of states. The life of the nation has passed 
through many trials. Fifty years ago it hung in the balance, beside 
which crisis all others sink into insignificance. When that perilous 
time was safely passed, and the discussion over slavery, secession and 
kindred pre-rebellion topics was ended, then a discussion of many 
topics connected with the civic welfare of the country began. These 
discussions have been a training school for our citizen.ship, by wdiich 
they have been educated on many subjects and prepared to discharge 
more intelligently the duties of citizens. During these years the mass 
of the people have increased in moral fibre as they have applied ethical 
and moral considerations to the decision of controverted questions. 
In all these years manners have been softened, knowledge and learn¬ 
ing have been diffused, and the people * in the wide expanse of our 
territory have become homogeneous. Foreigners have received a kindly 
welcome, and when they read the Declaration of Independence, they 
say that is our Declaration, and they salute the Flag and rejoice to 
stand under its folds and claim it as their own. The laws of the 48 
states are inspired by the beneficent spirit of the Declaration of In¬ 
dependence and the Constitution; the one language is spoken by the 
90 millions of people. The world has never seen such a power for 
good or evil as is possessed by the people of the United States. 

The discussions of the past fifty years are not properly to be con¬ 
sidered a sympton of unrest, but of enlightened conscience and of an 
altruistic spirit which seeks not only to enjoy life but to make life 
more enjoyable to others. The criticism of conditions and customs 
has not been destructive but constructive. The spirit of reform has 
had as its objective to protect the weak, to' stop abuses, to abolish 
poverty. On public platforms have been discussed labor questions, 
tariff questions, municipal questions, the commission form of govern¬ 
ment for cities, the initiative, referendum and recall, old age ques- 


ADDRESS BY THEODORE GILMAN 


7 


tions, questions regarding the treatment of prisoners, child labor, 
the high cost of living, economic questions, woman suffrage, banking 
and currency questions, conservation questions, the political machine 
and the bosses, recreation for young and old, the short ballot, public 
schools and the care of defective children, eugenic questions. The 
advocates of each separate reform, the number of which is legion 
with more to follo.w, are like the minister who said that whenever 
he preached from a text, he thought that particular one was the most 
important in the Bible. So with each topic, its supporters think it is 
the great panacea which if carried into effect, will produce quiet and 
contentment in all classes. 

The common characteristic of all the reforms now agitating the 
public is that they are proposed for the betterment of the body 
politic. Labor unions seek the amelioration of the condition of the 
working man, and they have accomplished much in that direction. 
No one can doubt the unselfishness of Miss Jane Addams. Reformers, 
convinced of the merit of their proposals, are pained and discouraged 
by the indifference and inertia of the public. With sublime courage 
they persevere with their efforts to awaken those that sleep. They 
are like that Grecian patriot and orator, who was observed delivering 
an address to one after another of the marble statues in the public build¬ 
ings of Athens. When asked an explanation of his strange conduct, he 
said he had a message for the public good to present to his countrymen, 
and he was trying to accustom himself to their turning to him a deaf ear. 

The minds of the public are intensely wrought up on these reforms, 
which have been pressing for favorable action these score or more 
of years. The complaint has been that the wheels of the chariot of 
progress have been moving too slowly. The reformers are getting dis¬ 
heartened or even desperate. Each special reform is so much kindling 
wood. It has all been carefully laid with good ventilation between, 
so that it only needed a spark to set the whole pile in a blaze. That 
spark has been furnished and the fire has started. 

Now, in this presidential campaign, the time has come and the 
Man. The events connected with the defeat of the popular will at 
the Republican Convention at Chicago set all the nerves of the 
reformers tingling. Now, they said, the time has come, let us all pull 
together, each one on his own oar. The time has come, after weary 
waiting, and behold we hear a leader’s voice, and see that a Man has 
appeared, with boundless energy and strong intellect and matchless 
courage, to marshal the hosts of reform and lead them forth to 
battle. That Man is Theodore Roosevelt. 


8 


ADDRESS BY THEODORE GILMAN 


In all assaults on an enemy there is always one grand objective 
point which must be captured or the battle is lost. That point in 
this contest is the political machine, which Dr. Butler has not men¬ 
tioned in his address. Organizations of this kind have gradually 
grown up in all these years, and they are well called the invisible 
government. They are not known to the Constitution. The officials 
of this government sit in darkness and their acts are not made public. 
They elude responsibility, for they have no corporate existence. They 
are open to corrupt deals, and in fact are a kind of clearing house 
for secret and underhanded arrangements between all parties. 

Every reformer can make some progress with his reform, can get 
it commended by periodicals and individuals of prominence, but when 
he reaches the law-making power, he meets an insurmountable and 
unseen obstacle. That obstacle is the machine. It cannot be proved 
that there has been a corrupt bargain and the honest legislator cannot 
explain it. All that he can say is that he recognizes the merit of the 
proposition for which his assistance' is asked, but the organization 
has told him to sidetrack it, and he will say, “You know that if I do 
not obey, I will lose my chairmanship of this committee.” Thus the 
machine controls legislation, and it nominates legislators and pays 
for political services in offices and opportunity to make money. Thus 
the machine intrenches itself and is supported by its willing hench¬ 
men. 

In all these years the machine has been perfected as an organi¬ 
zation, so that now it runs smoothly and satisfactorily to those in¬ 
terested in its operations. It has degraded the public service and 
it is often true that to deal successfully with the government one must 
demean himself or become dishonest. It does not involve a change 
in our form of government to cut out this unhealthy growth and 
bring our representatives into direct relationship with the people who 
elect them. 

And now comes Dr. Butler with his address and says that to bring 
the people into closer relations with their representatives by means 
of the direct primaries, referendum and recall of executive officials, is 
destructive of the fundamental principles of representative govern¬ 
ment. The Supreme Court of the United States did not find it so in 
the Oregon Tax case. To the reformers, these proposals seem to be 
the most perfect fulfilment of representative government. The kind 
which Dr. Butler advocates is that which turns over the government 
to the representative and trusts in his honesty and ability to carry it 
on honestly and ably for the benefit of the country. He says he would 


ADDRESS BY THEODORE GILMAN 


9 


have ^^not more frequent elections but fewer, not more elective offi¬ 
cers but fewer with relatively longer terms of office, not more legis¬ 
lation but infinitely less.” He appeals to history and philosophy from 
Aristotle to Burke to show that any close relationship between the 
voter and his representative is full of danger to the interests of the 
country. This is the spirit of aristocracy. 

How pleased all machine men and grafters must have been to 
read Dr. Butler’s learned argument. They must have commended 
and praised him and said, that is the kind of doctrine for us. We 
want the public to elect us for as much longer terms as they will, 
and then go home and leave us in peace and quiet with a free hand 
to attend to the affairs of the government, make its contracts and 
protect those interests which are willing to reciprocate to us. Verily 
Dr. Butler must already be a saint in the grafter’s calendar. If Dr. 
Butler is right in his contention that such is true representative 
government, then it behooves us to go home and submit to being 
plundered, for there is no alternative. But is he right? He would 
make the Constitution read “We, the representatives of the people 
of the United States,” instead of “We, the people of the United 
States.” He gives the people a subordinate place to the representatives, 
which is pure aristocracy. 

Dr. Butler’s position is undermined by the simplicity and 
directness of the phraseology of the Constitution following in perfect 
harmony with that greater document, the Declaration of Independence, 
which says that “governments derive their just powers from the con¬ 
sent of the governed.” If these words are to be taken at their face 
value, there is no place in our government for a political machine, 
and the relation between the people and their representatives should 
be direct and intimate. 

It is evident, as has been already said, that the discussions awak¬ 
ened by the Progressive Party are a continuation of those which 
prevailed in 1787 over the adoption of the Constitution. One hun¬ 
dred and twenty-five years are a short time in the history of a nation 
and not too long to try an experiment in government to determine 
which of two methods is the best. James Madison, in the 55th number 
of the Federalist, wrote, “I am unable to conceive that the people 
of America, in their present temper, or under any circumstances 
which can speedily happen, will choose the men * * * who would 
be disposed to form and pursue a scheme of tyranny or treachery.” “What 
change of circumstances, time and a fuller population of our country 
may produce requires a prophetic spirit, which makes no part of my 


10 


ADDRESS BY THEODORE GILMAN 


pretensions. Bnt judging- from the circumstances now before us, and 
from the probable state of them within a moderate period of time, I 
must pronounce that the liberties of America cannot be unsafe in 
the number of hands proposed by the federal constitution.’’ There 
is no such contident tone in these words as is assumed by Dr. Butler. 
Evidently Mr. Madison expected the form of government contained 
in the Constitution to last but for “a moderate period of time.” It 
I has now lasted far beyond his expectations. It cannot be considered 
a departure from his councils for this generation to take up the 
subject for review and decide for ourselves what if any changes are 
desirable and necessary to meet the changed conditions which were 
inevitable and which he did not pretend to be able to foresee. 

This country has followed the advice of James Madison and the 
Federalists for 125 years, and history shows that it was good advice 
for the greater part of that time. But now, what to him was incon¬ 
ceivable has taken place, an invisible government has arisen which 
has pursued a scheme of tyranny and treachery. In these latter days 
the confidence which he was willing to place in men elected to public 
office has been abused. This may not be considered a passing expe¬ 
rience as suggested by Dr. Butler, for we find that at the end of 125 
years the machine is more firmly fixed on the necks of both parties 
than was the Old Man of the Sea on the neck of Sinbad the Sailor. 

No doubt Mr. Madison, in laboring through the 55th, 56th and 
57th papers in the Federalist, with his argument on this point, had in 
mind the fiery speeches of Patrick Henry in opposition to the rati¬ 
fication of the Constitution by the State of Virginia. Patrick Henry 
has been classed as the greatest orator America, has ever produced. 
He electrified the Virginia Convention in 1775 by his speech which 
closed with these famous words, ^Ts life so dear or peace so sweet 
as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, 
Almighty God. I know not what course others ma.y take, but as for 
me, give me liberty or give me death.” 

Again his powerful voice was heard in 1788 at the Convention in 
Virginia called to consider the ratification or rejection of the pro¬ 
posed Constitution. In the course of his address, he said, ‘Tt is on 
the supposition that your American governors shall be honest that 
all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective 
and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetuate the 
worst of mischiefs should they be bad men. And, sir, would not all 
the world, from the eastern to the western hemisphere, blame our dis¬ 
tracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers 



ADDRESS BY THEODORE GILMAN 


11 


being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights 
and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their 
rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty. I say 
that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed with absolute 
certainty every such weak attempt.” The Constitution was aftei’wards 
ratified by Virginia by the close vote of 89 in favor to 79 against. 
Patrick Henry then loyally said, “I will be a peaceful citizen: My 
head, my hand, my heart, shall be at liberty to retrieve the loss of 
liberty and remove the defects of that system in a constitutional way. 
I shall therefore patiently wait, in expectation of seeing that govern¬ 
ment changed so as to be compatible with the safety, liberty and 
happiness of the people.” 

We have in James Madison and Patrick Henry representatives 
of the two opposite theories held to-day as well as in 1788 in reference 
to the Constitution. James Madison’s aristocratic views are upheld by 
those whose exponent is Dr. Butler, and Patrick Henry stands for the 
Progressive Party. Of the 65 members of the Federal Convention, 
only 39 affixed their signatures to the report. Twenty-six either never 
attended or refused to sign. The recorded votes in favor of the 
adoption in ten state conventions were 976 and opposed 552. It would 
seem certain that if the Constitution had been submitted to a popu¬ 
lar vote instead of to state conventions, it would have been de¬ 
feated by a large majority. Jefferson was not in the country at the 
time, but his references to the Constitution were slurring if not con¬ 
temptuous. The glory of the Constitution is in the fact of its adop¬ 
tion, by which a strong nation was born, not in its provisions, for they 
might have been different in many parts without diminishing the 
fame of those who sunk all minor considerations to attain the one 
great end, in the language of the time, a respectable republic. 

While we must all commend the wise conduct of James Madison 
and the other Federalists in the great work they did in securing to 
us the adoption of the Constitution, we cannot forget that their 
patriarchal doctrines were those which have always been held by 
believers in aristocratic or monarchial government. The abbe 
Biaudeau, in the time of Louis XV of France, interpreted these 
ideas well when he said it was easier to persuade a prince than a 
nation, and the triumph of true principles would sooner be secured 
by the sovereign power of a single man than by the conviction, difficult 
to obtain, of an entire people. If we put representative instead of 
prince, we have in this courtier’s words the exact argument of James 
Madison and Dr. Butler. 


12 


ADDRESS BY THEODORE GILMAN 


How different is this from the opinion expressed by Aristotle in 
his History of the Athenian Constitution, referred to by Dr. Butler. 
In closing that history, Aristotle said, After the return of the people 
of Phyle and of PirsBus, commences the BfiGIME WHICH 
STILL LASTS TO-DAY (the capitals are not mine) under which 
the people have not ceased to increase their power. The people in 
effect are made master of all. They govern all by their decrees and 
by the tribunals in which they are sovereign. It is to the people, in 
effect, to whom have passed the judicial attributes which the Council 
had before, and this is justice. Por it is easier to corrupt a small 
number of men than a crowd by the inducement of gain and by favors.’’ 
Dr. Butler here comes into direct conflict with the opinions of the 
great Stagyrite. 

Was not Patrick Henry right when he challenged his hearers to 
“Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the 
people were placed on the chance of their rulers being good men, 
without a consequent loss of liberty?” Look at France, hurrying from 
Louis XIVth to the horrors of the French Be volution. Were those 
French princes easier to persuade to adopt true principles than the 
nation who had been robbed until in their poverty they “had nothing 
left but their eyes to weep with.” 

Patrick Henry’s challenge is still unanswered. We cannot meet 
it by citing the present condition of politics in the United States. 
His fear that a king might usurp our government has proved ground¬ 
less, but a machine can take away the liberties of a people as well as 
a king. Patrick Henry’s warning was not based on a political theory, 
but on the dictum that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. He 
was a student of human nature as well as of history. His position 
is unassailable and incontrovertible that it is a false principle on which 
to rest a government, the expectation that the rulers will be good men. 
They may start off well, but in process of time, in 50 or 100 or 125 
years, designing men will see their opportunity and will grasp the 
power and take it away from their too conflding and unsuspecting 
fellow-citizens. 

There is nothing new about this. Plato said his Model Aristocrati- 
cal City would not last forever. The fatal period of its destruction 
would arrive when the breed of its Guardians will degenerate. The 
love of wealth will get possession of them, and having in themselves 
the force of the City, they will divide the wealth among themselves 
and reduce the other citizens to dependence and slavery. What is 


ADDRESS BY THEODORE GILMAN 


13 


this but a description of the rise and progress of the machine which 
always follows the aristocratic method of government. 

The Progressive Party stands ready with its proposals which have 
already been alluded to to remedy the situation into which we have 
fallen. It is to remove and obliterate the invisible agency which in¬ 
tervenes between the citizen and his official representatives, so that 
the contact may be direct and personal and the representative shall 
feel his direct and personal allegiance and accountability to his lawful 
constituent. This is to be accomplished by several reforms, but first 
of all by the direct primary and the abolition of all conventions in 
which machines may be organized and slates prepared beforehand. 
If a representative or other official owes his position to a machine, he 
must necessarily feel that there is where his allegiance lies. The 
primary must be so direct that the man elected shall feel that he 
owes his allegiance to no one except to the voters who have elected 
him. By this means all connection between the legislature and the 
machine is cut ofi. 

But when legislative bodies are convened, it is an indispensable 
reform in legislative procedure that all committees shall be elected 
by ballot. Committees are the eyes, hands and feet of legislative 
bodies and all possible connection between them and the invisible 
government must be prevented. When committees are appointed by 
the chairman or speaker, there naturally arises consultation and 
selection and preference. Then pledges and promises and bargains 
begin, and if committees are not appointed by ballot, all the benefits 
from a direct primary may be lost. The House of Kepresentatives has 
begun a reform in this direction and it should be carried on to per¬ 
fection and prevail in all legislative bodies, both state and national. 

It is to be noted that when the Federal Convention assembled in 
1787 to prepare the Constitution, one of the rules adopted was that 
all committees should be elected by ballot. If there was ever a case 
in the history of our country when it would be safe for the presiding 
officer to appoint the committees, it was then, for George Washington 
was that presiding officer. The wise men who composed that con¬ 
vention set an example to all succeeding assemblages when they 
adopted that rule with that august personage in the chair. 

To form a stable government which will last another 125 years, 
there is need of still further getting together of the people and their 
representatives. For these further reforms also the Progressive Party 
stands. It is comprised in the words, the initiative, referendum and 
recall of executive officials. These measures do not destroy repre- 


14 


ADDRESS BY THEODORE GILMAN 


sentative government, they only bring the people closer to their repre¬ 
sentatives. The initiative is constructive. By it the people propose 
legislation to their representatives. The referendum is preventive, 
and gives an opportunity to the people for further consideration of 
doubtful legislation. The recall is a short method of impeacliment, 
whenever a public official seems to a required number of voters to 
have betrayed his trust. 

Dr. Butler has referred to Aristotle’s history of the Athenian Con¬ 
stitution from slavery to a pure democracy, for arguments against 
the recall. He enumerates several instances in which he thinks it 
was wrongly used. He says, “We can now see more clearly than ever 
before why it was that Athens with all its glory went to pieces.” 
But Aristotle’s history shows that the recall was exercised during the 
aristocratic or oligarchic periods, which were succeeded by a demo¬ 
cratic government which Aristotle approved of. In fact, the greatness 
of Athens was based on the profit of its copper mines, which enabled 
Themistocles to build the fleet which won the battle of Salamis. The 
glory of Athens departed when those copper mines failed. Its ending 
as a great power was a financial, not a political collapse, and had 
little or nothing to do with the recall. 

It is easy to assent to that statement in the Declaration of In¬ 
dependence that all governments derive their just powers from the 
consent of the governed. If all governments originate from the 
people, then the initiative, referendum and recall rest on a higher 
authority than the Constitution. The words “sovereign people” are 
not an empty phrase. The titled men of Europe are glad to acknowl¬ 
edge the social equality of our American girls. They see that under 
our form of government our girls are the daughters of sovereigns and 
are therefore princesses, and they take very good care that the girls 
bring their sovereigns with them in the shape of cold cash. Our 
officials are not our lords and masters, they are our servants and are 
paid for their time and labor. The people are sovereign and as such 
have an inherent right to issue their orders to their representatives 
either to do certain acts or to refrain from doing them. The people 
also have an inherent right to discharge a servant who is unfaithful 
or unfit. If they have not these rights, then the people are not sov¬ 
ereign, then the whole framework of our government is wrong and 
misunderstood. 

In an election, we must take the chance of the nominee being a 
good man, but the evil effect of a mistake is reduced to a minimum 
by the recall. A continuous term of office sets a temptation before the of- 


ADDRESS BY THEODORE GILMAN 


15 


ficial. It has a tendency to make an honest man dishonest. A term 
subject to recall is a powerful influence to make a dishonest man honest. 

The direct primary, coupled with the initiative, referendum and 
recall, meet the requirements of Patrick Henry’s criticism of the 
Constitution and after 125 years bring it up to date. “He lost on the 
main issue in his own generation only because he saw further into the 
future than any other man of his time dared to see.” These are the 
words of David J. Brewer, late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court 
of the United States. The correctness of Patrick Henry’s judgment 
is now acknowledged and the errors and dangers he pointed out are 
in the way to be rectifled. 

The hope of our country for its purification from the evils of a 
debauched public sentiment lies in the program of the Progressive 
Party. That party is not alone in pointing out the necessity for 
reform, but it is the only party which names specific evils and pro¬ 
poses to eradicate them. When there is no protest against evil, the 
conscience has become callous. If there is no reaction in the presence 
of wrong doing, there is no moral life. That country is morally dead 
which does not cry out against public immorality. 

Gulielmo Ferrero, the Italian historian, in the Atlantic Monthly 
for July, 1910, finds the difference between the people of the United 
States and some countries of Europe, that here there is reaction and 
protest against vice and wrongdoing, with a determination to cut 
them out root and branch, while in the parts of Europe he refers to, 
he says, “hardly anyone thinks any longer that the evil can be eradi¬ 
cated. In America there is still protest, in Europe there is silence. 
Evil exists on both sides of the ocean, but on the American side there 
is still hope that it may be extirpated, and there is a will to attempt 
the work of purification. On the European side the present conditions 
are accepted without a word, just as they are, the good with the 
bad. After centuries of license, the resisting force is no longer 
strong enough, even in protestant states, to produce a social struggle 
against existing conditions.” God grant that our country may never 
reach the condition described by this able and clear sighted historian. 

“Vice is a monster of such frightful mein 
That to be hated needs but to be seen. 

But oft, alas, familiar with her fa,ce. 

We first endure, then pity, then embrace.” 

The Progressive Party calls on the country to join in an effort 
to purify politics, and the response to its call is wide and spontaneous 


16 


ADDRESS BY THEODORE GILMAN 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



027 119 746 9 | 


enough to make it apparent that the public conscience in America is 
not dead. But what are we to think of those who recognize these 
evils and yet do not join in the effort to eradicate them. Dr. Butler 
says, “It is not necessary for those of us who believe in a representa¬ 
tive republic to say that it has no shortcomings. It is not necessary 
for us to take up the position that everything goes on in a way which 
is beyond criticism. We need not do that. We must look the facts 
in the face. We should admit the limitations of ourselves and of other 
human beings; we know the deficiencies and defects that constantly 
present themselves in our governmental administration, whether 
national, state or municipal. But suppose we ask ourselves this ques¬ 
tion, Need we destroy fundamental principles to correct temporary 
infelicities?” This euphemism of “temporary infelicities” is a thin 
coating of whitewash to cover the misdeeds of the past fifty years, 
and the “fundamental principles” of the Declaration of Independ¬ 
ence all support the other side of the argument. 

No! this is a moral crisis in the affairs of our country. The 
consciences of those who, knowing the existing evils, would prolong 
the present condition of public life without a protest, are not suffi¬ 
ciently sensitive. Those to whom tens of thousands of ypung men 
look for moral guidance, should cry out against these evils. Instead 
of that, like their discouraged confreres in Europe, they keep silence. 

Fellow Progressives, when men in high places of infiuence, with 
full knowledge of the facts, keep silence, it is all the more necessary 
for one and all to rally to the support of our Party, for we stand at 
Armageddon and we battle for the Lord. 


Yonkers, September 16th, 1912. 


[7920M] 




